Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.The petitioner is a senior citizen and a widow belonging to Scheduled Castes. Her son abandoned her rendering her vulnerable. She is seeking a direction to the Government to take all steps to put her back in possession of her house-property. The facts of the case in brief are that the house bearing No.254, Indira Harijan Sev Sangha, New Byappanahalli, Indiranagar, Bangalore was allotted to her family by the Karnataka Slum Clearance Board around the year 1980. To meet the medical expenses of her son, she was compelled to borrow Rs. 30,000/- from a local money-lender, Karunakaran (respondent No.5 herein). But at the time of giving the loan itself, he withheld Rs. 5,000/-, that is he actually gave only Rs. 25,000/-. Within six months she returned the entire amount with interest. However, the respondent No.5 demanded more money towards interest and started harassing her. She paid Rs. 30,000/- more to the respondent No.5. Then he demanded that she should pay him Rs. 2.5 lakhs more. As she could not meet his further illegal demands, he threw her and her things out of the house and forcibly took the possession of the house around May, 2008. He also snatched the property documents from her. The issue of restoration of the possession of the said house was taken up with the Police, Karnataka State Human Rights Commission, Karnataka Slum Development Board and Elders-Helpline. As the representations/complaints filed with the said authorities did not lead her anywhere, she has filed this petition.

2. Sri. Clifton D Rozario, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fifth respondent himself has agreed to give back the possession of the house to the petitioner, as is evident from his statement at Annexure-M and the report of the Police, dated 10.06.2011 at Annexure-K. Even when the petitioner has paid more than what she was obliged to pay, the possession of the house is not being restored to her.

3. Sri. Rozario brings to my notice the various provisions contained in the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (the said Act-for short). He submits that under Section 22(2) of the said Act, the State Government is required to prescribe a comprehensive action plan for providing protection of life and property of senior citizens. He submits that as per Section 3 of the said Act, the provisions of the said Act would have primacy over the provisions of any other enactment.

4. Nextly the learned counsel brings to my notice the Karnataka Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 (the said Rules-for short) framed under the said Act. Rule 20(2)(i) of the said Rules requires the District Magistrate to ensure that the life and property of the senior citizens of the district are protected so that they are able to live with security and dignity. Rule 21(1) of the said Rules requires the District Superintendent of Police and in case of cities having a Police Commissioner, such Police Commissioner to take all necessary steps for the protection of life and property of the senior citizens. Rule 21(2)(i) states that each and every police station shall maintain an up-to-date list of senior citizens living within their jurisdiction, especially those who are staying single.

5. He also brings to my notice Section 27 of the said Act, which ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. It reads as follows:

"27. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts barred.- No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter to which any provision of this Act applies and no injunction shall be granted by any Civil Court in respect of anything which is done or intended to be done by or under this Act."

6. He has relied on the Division Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Majeedan v. State of U.P. and others in Misc. Bench No.11773/2014 disposed of on 27.11.2014 (Reported in 2015 (108) All LR 399), wherein a direction is given to the District Magistrate to look into the grievance of the senior citizen and to take necessary steps for the restoration of the possession of the senior citizens over the disputed property, if his allegations are found to be true. He has also relied on the Division Bench decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Justice Shanti Sarup Dewan and another v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others in Letters Patent Appeal No.1007/2013, disposed of on 26.09.2013. It is held in the said case that one of the major aims for enacting the said Act is to provide for institutionalisation of a suitable mechanism for the protection of life and property of other persons. Paragraph Nos.38, 39 and direction Nos.2, 3 and 4 of the said decision, read out by him, are extracted herein below:

"38. A lot of hue and cry has been raised on the issue as to whether directions can be issued in writ proceedings under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India to enforce the provisions of the said Act. We have already noticed above that a proper mechanism for enforcement of the provisions of the said Act for protecting the property rights of the appellants under Section 22 of the said Act has not been put in place by the Union Territory Administration and enforcement would be a big issue. How and through which machinery can a Special Cell ensure the eviction of respondent No. 7 from the property so that the appellants can live in peace in their house Can we say that the Courts would be powerless both in equity and law to enforce such an order when primacy has been given to the provisions of the said Act over all other law. The answer to these questions should be in the negative. If the State fails to perform the functions envisaged under an Act, it would certainly give rise to a jurisdiction to be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (A.B.L. International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. 2004 (3) SCC 553 and Mrs. Sanjana M. Wig v. Hindustan Petro. Corporation Ltd., AIR 2005 SC 3454 [LQ/SC/2005/920 ;] ">AIR 2005 SC 3454 [LQ/SC/2005/920 ;] [LQ/SC/2005/920 ;] ).

39. In the present case, there is, as noticed, a failure to provide mechanism and thus the protection of the property of the appellants envisaged under the salutary provisions of the said Act certainly can be LPA No. 1007 of 2013 (O&M) enforced under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We have already noticed above that if there is a legal right to share the property at Chandigarh, which respondent No. 7 seeks to establish, for whatever it is worth, it is for respondent No. 7 to approach the Civil Court and not vice-versa. The right of exclusive possession of a self owned property by a registered document of title can well be enforced under the provisions of the said Act by issuing appropriate directions in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We have thus once again in no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that there is nothing which prohibits the writ jurisdiction to be exercised in such a case.

... ... ... ... ... ... ..

(ii) Respondent No. 7 and his family members are directed to vacate the property bearing House No. 642, Sector 11-B, Chandigarh to the extent it is occupied by them and the keys be handed over to appellant No.1 within a period of 15 days from today.

(iii) The Senior Superintendent of Police of Union Territory, Chandigarh/respondent No.3 is directed to ensure enforcement of the direction (ii) mentioned above.

(iv) If respondent No. 7 wants to establish any legal right or share in the aforesaid house, he is free to file appropriate civil proceedings but without infringing the exclusive rights of the appellants in the interregnum period implying that there would be no interim injunction qua occupation by the Civil Court as that would be a violation of the provisions of the said Act."

7. Sri. Y.D. Harsha, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that the police stations are indeed maintaining the up-to-date list of senior citizens living within their respective jurisdiction. On being asked as to what is the stage and status in the criminal case filed against the respondent No.5, he submits that he has no instructions in the matter.

8. Sri. M.P. Srikanth, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 confirms that the house was allotted to the petitioners family by the Karnataka Slums Development Board.

9. The respondent No.5 is served with the notice but has remained unrepresented.

10. Protecting older peoples rights enable them to lead secure lives, as equal members of the society. The vulnerability of older persons to abuse and exploitation is shared across cultures and borders. The United Nations Organization (UNO) has passed the resolution No.46/91 in the meeting of its General Assembly on 16.12.1991 to encourage the Governments to incorporate, inter alia, the principle of freeing the older persons from exploitation and abuse, into their national programmes wherever possible.

11. Prioritization of the special rights of the disadvantaged group, namely of the elders, has weighed with the Legislature, which has enacted the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2001. The perusal of the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act reveals that it was enacted to protect the life and property of the older people. A large number of elderly persons, particularly widowed woman, are not being looked after by their families. In exercise of its wisdom, the Union Legislature has provided for simple, inexpensive and speedy procedure for the protection of life and property of the senior citizens. If the senior citizens have to invoke the common law remedies and approach the civil court, it would be difficult to restore their rights during the remaining part of their life. Therefore the jurisdiction of the civil court under Section 27 of the said Act is ousted in respect of any matter to which any provision of the said Act applies.

12. The Section 22(2) of the said Act also requires the State Government to prescribe the comprehensive action plan for providing protection of life and property of senior citizens. The Karnataka Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 are framed under Section 32 of the said Act. Rule 20 (2)(i), (iv) of the said Rules read as follows:

"20. Duties and powers of the District Magistrate.-

(2) It shall be the duty of the District Magistrate to:-

(i) ensure that life and property of senior citizens of the District are protected and they are able to live with security and dignity;

(iv) ensure regular and wide publicity of the provisions of the Act, and Central and State Governments programmes for the welfare of senior citizens;

13. Rule 21 of the said Rules reads as follows:

21. Action plan for the protection of life and property of senior citizens

(1) The District Superintendent of Police, and in the case of cities having a Police Commissioner, such Police Commissioner shall take all necessary steps, subject to such guidelines as the State Government may issue from time-to-time, for the protection of life and property of parents/senior citizens.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-rule (1):-

(i) each police station shall maintain an up-to-date list of senior citizens living within their jurisdiction, especially those who are staying single;

(ii) a representative of police station together, as far as possible, with a social worker or volunteer, shall visit such senior citizens at regular intervals of at least once a month, and shall, in addition, visit them as quickly as possible on receipt of a request for assistance from them;

(iii) complaints/problems of senior citizens shall be given top priority by the local police;

(iv) committee shall be formed at each police station area, constituting senior citizen, parents and meet at regular intervals;

(v) the District Superintendent of Police or, as the case may be, the Police Commissioner shall cause to be published widely in the media and through the Police Stations, at regular intervals, the steps being taken for the protection of life and property of senior citizens and parents;

(vi) antecedents of domestic servants and others working for senior citizens shall be promptly verified, on the request of such citizens;

(vii) the District Superintendent of Police shall submit to the Director General of Police and to the District Magistrate, a monthly report by the 20th of every month, about the status of crime against senior citizens during the previous month, including progress of investigation and prosecution of registered offences and preventive steps taken during the month."

14. The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Justice Shanti Sarup Dewan (supra) has examined the permissibility of giving the directions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to enforce the provisions of the said Act. In the light of the afore-referred provisions of the said Act and Rules, let me examine the factual matrix of this case. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a widowed woman of 70 years. The house was allotted to her and her husband by the Karnataka Slum Development Board. It is also not in dispute that the respondent No.5 has lent some money to her. As he was demanding interest at exorbitant rate and as the petitioner resisted the same, she is dispossessed by the respondent No.5. That she was residing in the house in question, is also evident from the ration-card at Annexure-A.

15. The respondent No.5 has given the statement, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-M. He has stated that he would give back the possession of the house to the petitioner, if she repays the amounts. The report, dated 10.06.2011 (Annexure-K) also states that the respondent No.5 has agreed to give back the possession after receiving the amounts from the petitioner.

16. These being the un-controvertible facts and in the light of the ouster of the Civil Courts jurisdiction by Section 27 of the said Act, the question of relegating the petitioner to the Civil Court would not arise at all. This petition is disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to take the necessary steps for the restoration of the house from the fifth respondent to the petitioner on satisfying himself that the allegations made in her representation, dated 14.03.2011 are substantially true and correct.

17. Before I part company with this case, I notice with concern, that the charge-sheet filed by the Police (Annexure-E) is not in consonance with the complaint filed by the petitioner and the admissions made by the respondent No.5. For the reasons best known to the Police, the respondent No.5 is not being charge-sheeted for the offences like taking the possession of the petitioners house-property illegally to recover a paltry sum of money. It is for the Police to examine the need to file the additional charge-sheet.

18. If the respondent No.5 is in a position to establish that all the dues are not cleared by the petitioner, it is open to him to approach the Civil Court and file suit for recovery. But he cannot take law in his own hands, throw the petitioner out of the house-property, as a part of his recovery strategy culminating in his unlawful enrichment. The case on hand is a classic example of the deprivation of the property of the vulnerable elderly lady.

19. The laudable and beneficial provisions of the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder are to be given effect to by the State Government. It is high time the State Government comes out with a comprehensive action plan for providing protection to the lives and properties of senior citizens. The District Magistrate is yet to comply with the requirement of Rule 20(2)(x) where under the establishment of dedicated help-line for the senior citizens at the district and taluk headquarters is to be promoted. If the police stations have not been maintaining the up-to-date list of senior citizens living within their respective jurisdictions, it is high time they start the process, which is the unmistakable mandate contained in Rule 21(2)(i) of the said Rules. The implementation-gaps in the protection of older people are to be detected, addressed and filled in.

20. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Karnataka.